> Not sure about the word 'end', as it will not always be evident which
> end of a loop is the 'end’.
The modifier name I suggested was "break at the *end* of the leg, not
the start of it like you normally would". Sortof like "to" rather than
"from", except that Therion picks its own start
I wondered if adding extend statements in-line with data would offer a
solution, or at least some insight.
If so I have not found it yet. Interested to see if anyone else can:
1. Make the loop generate anticlockwise and produce a gap at station 2,
with the second instance of 2 on the
Hmm, may need to think about this.
We risk adding adhoc patches on adhoc patches and painting ourselves into a
corner.
Agree we should not add a new keyword just to emulate an obscure special case
that is not well understood or well handled by 'ignore'. So a modifier of
'ignore' would be
> Well, there is one workaround. But to be honest, I have no idea why :/
>
> extend ignore 7 8
> extend ignore 8 7
Wow!
First thought is; that ... really shouldn't work, and it looks almost
like a bug.
Maybe there is logic though, if you look at those two statements in the
opposite
Well, there is one workaround. But to be honest, I have no idea why :/
extend ignore 7 8
extend ignore 8 7
Something like:
extend end 8 7
... would be definitely better. Is it OK to implement it like that?
S.
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 11:38, Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion <
> Actually, I have found a way, but it is cheating, and not suitable for a
> real-life project.
Indeed. starting from the wrong end would just swap one problem for
another ;)
I added an "Important note" to the end of this:
https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/breakingextend
Summary:
As it currently
> OK, I give up I think. It might not be possible to break a loop at it’s
> closing end.
OK, so if even the extended elevation master can't do it, I don't have
to feel like I missed something obvious...
My proposed solution would be for "extend ignore 7 8" to tell Therion "I
want you to break
Actually, I have found a way, but it is cheating, and not suitable for a
real-life project.
Just start the sequence from the other end of the survey. Now I expect it is
not possible to make a gap at station 2.
#set gap at station 7 by starting from station 11
extend start 11
OK, I give up I think. It might not be possible to break a loop at it’s
closing end.
Tarquin’s example…
1 2 10 -10
2 3 10 -10
3 4 145 -10
4 5 145 -10
5 6 145 -10
6 7 190 -10
7 8 1.71 225 60
8 9 1225 10
9 10 1225 10
10
